D. Larry Todd

The appellant contractor's construction lien expired after it failed to set the action down for trial within two years.

The respondent owner brought a motion without notice under section 46 of the Construction Lien Act, resulting in the dismissal of the entire action, including the appellant's breach of contract claims.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the lien claims were properly dismissed, the contract claims should not have been summarily dismissed without notice.

The court varied the order to allow the breach of contract claims to proceed, noting that the Act does not mandate the dismissal of non-lien claims upon the expiry of a lien.

Following dismissal of a summary judgment motion brought by certain defendants, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs for successfully resisting the motion and for related procedural steps including a consent amendment to the statement of claim.

The court applied the discretionary criteria under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the significance of the motion to both parties and the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s litigation steps.

While the plaintiff largely succeeded, the court adjusted the claimed amount modestly based on reasonable expectations of the losing parties.

Costs were fixed in favour of the plaintiff against the moving defendants and separately against another defendant for an earlier substituted service motion.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a fraudulent conveyance action arising from a transfer of farm property allegedly made to defeat unresolved family law support and proprietary claims, and the plaintiff cross-moved for leave to amend to plead constructive trust and tracing remedies.

The court held that an unresolved support claim under the Family Law Act provided standing as a 'creditor or other' under s. 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

It further held that an FCA action seeking to set aside a conveyance of real property is an action to recover land governed by s. 4 of the Real Property Limitations Act, attracting a ten-year limitation period rather than the two-year period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The action and proposed amendments were therefore not statute-barred.

The defendants' motion was dismissed and the plaintiff's cross-motion was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a penalty imposed by the Ontario Racing Commission for a positive drug test involving furosemide.

The Divisional Court found that the Commission erred by treating furosemide as a Class V drug without explanation, as it is not classified as such in the Uniform Classification Guidelines.

The court held the penalty decision was unreasonable, granted the application, and remitted the matter to the Commission for re-determination.

An estate beneficiary sought removal of a co‑estate trustee and repayment of approximately $131,000 allegedly misappropriated from their father while the respondent acted under a power of attorney and provided caregiving.

The applicant argued the deceased suffered dementia and lacked financial capacity while living with the respondent.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the deceased retained capacity to make financial decisions until shortly before his death and that the respondent did not misappropriate funds.

Evidence showed expenditures were broadly consistent with the deceased’s spending habits and the respondent gained no personal financial benefit.

The court dismissed the request to remove the trustee, declined to order repayment to the estate, and refused to compel a passing of accounts.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to enforce compliance with its declaration against a commercial unit owner and its tenant, who were selling fresh meat and poultry in violation of another unit's exclusive use rights.

The respondents argued that the application was premature because the dispute had not been mediated pursuant to s. 132 of the Condominium Act, 1998, and claimed a settlement had been reached at a prior meeting.

The court found that no settlement was reached and held that the mandatory mediation provisions under s. 132 do not apply to disputes involving tenants or occupants.

The court ordered the respondents to comply with the declaration and cease selling fresh meat and poultry.